WDEL Blog: Allan Loudell

Evolving definition of the word, "thug"

I used to think the term, "thug", referred to a low-life of ANY race, someone with a criminal record in the streets, a ruffian.

But has the definition of a word shifted to refer almost exclusively to African-American teens and young men, playing hip-hop loudly from their vehicles?

But, as Roger Simon asks... "Who are the real thugs? The unarmed black kids who play loud music or walk to stores to buy Skittles? Or the white guys who are armed to the teeth and quick on the trigger?"

Here's Roger Simon's piece from POLITICO---


Posted at 7:05am on February 19, 2014 by Allan Loudell

<- Back to all Allan Loudell posts

Comments on this post:

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Feb 19, 2014 8:47am
Both are thugs. The first group, be they white or black kids, blast their music at 190 db [the volume of a jet aircraft engine] so that you can hear their car coming from two blocks away, while you're inside your house with the doors and windows closed. That disturbs the peace for everyone and should not be allowed, and it is a power thing they're welding on that community, because you can't stop them, so yes, you're forced to put up with their loud obnoxious "music"; they are thugs.

Our government used loud annoying music to fight terrorists; seems like we did this in Nicaragua and other places. Remember the bad guys finally surrendered, just to get away from that loud music. So that shows that excessively loud music can be a form of violence against others, thus my claim these kids are thugs.

Obviously, the second group are thugs too. They're just waiting for someone to cross them so they can play John Wayne and teach someone [OK pilgrim] a lesson and if they have to use their gun like the Duke did, so be it. They think they are some sort of hero, but they're wrong, they too are thugs. You don't go shooting kids for blasting their "music" and that guy who shot those kids is going to jail as he should, but sadly there's no law against those kids annoying everyone else with their "music" and that's not right either.

I believe the way to fix that problem is when someone is caught, by the cops, for playing their music that loud, they should be brought to the police station and locked into a room playing Polkas at a very loud volume for a minimum of 2 hours. They'd probably never again be a problem with blasting their "music", because then they'd understand how one man's music is another man's noise or "music".

Wed, Feb 19, 2014 9:24am
"But who are the real thugs? The unarmed black kids who play loud music or walk to stores to buy Skittles? Or the white guys who are armed to the teeth and quick on the trigger?"

The loud music was typical teenagers vs. old guy game... I did it and am sure many others in their youth did the same (though I preferred Metallica or The Misfits to "stick it to the man"). The guy in the car should have acted more level-headed and simply defused a simple/stupid exchange and driven to a different spot...but he didn't and instead fired into a truck of unarmed kids. Had Dunn moved his car and the "youths" followed him, began threatening him, and pulled him from his vehicle (closer to the Trayvon/Zimmermann scenario) then he might have been in the right to discharge his weapon to defend himself from attack/harm.

Equating this story to Trayvon is apples/oranges...Trayvon beat the hell out of Zimmerman before he defended himself with his CCW... Dunn had been drinking, got into a "heated exchange" and then discharged his firearm into a truckload of unarmed teens who had fled.

As for the question concerning who a "thug" is... anyone who acts like a thug is one. The problem is that many youth (all races) have embraced the "thug life" and want to be seen as hard/tough... not soft to their friends in the neighborhood.

Wed, Feb 19, 2014 9:40am
Words can, and do, change meanings as time matches on. The thug way-of-life most often refers to young Blacks and White wannabes. The word thug could also be applied to the Iron Workers Union in Philadelphia. Their "enforcement" agents were clearly thugs when they set fire to a church and used baseball bats on non-union workers.

I would not use the word to describe Dunn. There is no evidence to indicate he had repeated his murderous actions on a regular basis.

Wed, Feb 19, 2014 12:09pm
Mike Here is a polka that will chase thugs out of your neighborhood and ... attract people to Rick Jensen's Thirsty Thursday..


Wed, Feb 19, 2014 12:21pm
I was surprised to find the original Thugs come from India....

No wonder Dunkin Donuts coffee is so high...

(lol. That was, of course, a nod to our VP Biden. Obviously no connection between an ancient cult and today's business people who sell coffee that seriously is probably one of the best blends around..)


Wed, Feb 19, 2014 12:24pm
I chose to provide the link above because if you read the whole article, embedded deep within is a textbook example on how to deal with Wilmington's current gun problem.... Courtesy of our friends, the Brits.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Feb 19, 2014 7:27pm
Kavips: Some other polkas "das slickmeister Jensen" could use on his beer guzzling Thursday show is "In heaven there is no beer" and "Beer Barrel Polka".

He could also play the very old Sir Harry Lauder hit from 1912 called "A WEE DEOCH AN' DORIS" [English Translation from the Scottish - a final drink taken before parting. [a Scottish song] this particular recording was done in 1926 by Sir Harry.


Obviously for his Weasel of the Week segment on Fridays' Jensen could use the music of "Pop Goes the Weasel", using the sound track from the Three Stooges where Curley is a boxer and that song playing sets him off as you hear whooop whoop whoop of Curley in the background as he goes nuts. His audience is old enough to remember the Three Stooges and that reference so it should work well and add some humor to the show.


Interesting article about Thuggee's in India, and how the Brits dealt with the problem.

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Feb 19, 2014 7:40pm
On an other topic:

There’s been a lot of noise by TEA folks, who seem to believe everything they hear on right-wing talk radio and Fox News. Well those sources have been beating the drums about how many Executive Orders President Obama has been issuing during his two terms as President and how he's a dictator, etc., etc. Now, I'm not Obama's biggest fan [that's Kavips department], but the truth is the truth.

Here's the part of the story that right-wing Radio and Fox News is leaving out. Obama is far from being the worst president in using the Executive Order. Here is a list of the modern-times presidents [1920’s to Present] and how many EO’s each issued, Obama is in the minor leagues. The link below also shows the EO’s for all Presidents since George Washington.

Obama’s total EO’s as of January 2014 = 168

Bush Jr. = 291

Clinton = 364

Papa Bush = 166

Reagan = 381

Carter = 320

Ford = 169

Nixon = 346

Johnson = 325

Kennedy = 214

Eisenhower = 484

Truman = 907

Roosevelt = 3522

Hoover = 968

Coolidge = 1203


Wed, Feb 19, 2014 8:12pm
MFD: What you fail to mention is the fact that Obama uses the executive order exclusively for evil purposes. Only Josef Stalin could top this guy.

Wed, Feb 19, 2014 8:14pm
By the way, both Obama and Stalin could be described as thugs.

Wed, Feb 19, 2014 8:25pm
“In Article I Section I of the Constitution we learn that all legislative powers reside in Congress. The executive branch has the responsibility to execute the laws passed by Congress. An executive order is not legislation. It is an order issued by the president to enforce laws passed by Congress. This is backed by the declaration that the president ‘take care that the laws be faithfully executed’ made in Article II, Section 3, Clause 5. Thus, executive orders can only be used to carry out the will of Congress (which is only supposed to be passing laws in line with the Constitution), and not to issue new policy.”


Mike: It's not the number of EOs it's how they have been used by this president (to over-ride Congress and issue his own policies).

Mike from Delaware
Wed, Feb 19, 2014 8:56pm
EarlGrey: Before I could accept your premise, we'd need to know that those other Presidents didn't do the same thing, because you're implying only Obama has done that, which I find difficult to believe.

Mrpizza: Only Obama has used the EO's for evil? My guess others would make the same claim about both Bush Jr. & Reagan .

Wed, Feb 19, 2014 11:20pm
Mr.Pizza, if one stretches the definition far enough, anyone can be a thug... Even you!

"Oh, my goodness. someone's parked outside!! they walking up to our house. they've got a box. They have evil on their face. They look Russian! Call 911.. Tell them we're being home invaded by Communist Russian thugs!

Lol. The more you equate Obama with Stalin, the more the world listening in will equate you with Stalin, and the more you portray Obama into a pretty good person... So keep on..

There is a point at which past you continue to profess the ridiculous, you become it.

Mike, thanks for that link. I see the recent executive orders have pushed Obama past the first Bush. He is still behind Gerald Ford, though..

Wed, Feb 19, 2014 11:29pm
Earl. All executive orders have been used to override Congress. Did you forget Bush's executive orders, actually Cheney's, but Bush had to sign them?

Executive orders have all stood up in court. The President was elected by the people to do his job, and if one half of one house of one third of the branches of government wants to sell America down the river, the president by the authority invested in him by the American people, has the right to process an executive order. Congress, if it disagrees, can then pass a law OVER HIS VETO to nullify such.

Quit crying. Your party is in such shambles and is so broken, pathetic, embarassing, anti-American, and the closest thing to a Communist Party this nation has ever experienced, that.. it deserves getting kicked to the side. Except for 1 person out of 10, the entire nation of America is cheering that we finally have a president who is kicking them aside so America can work and pull itself back together....

If Republicans were one-half normal people, this wouldn't be happening....

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 12:23am
I heard Rick Jensen praising Calvin Coolidge up and down as the best president ever. Let's see if he attacks Obama on this executive order stuff, and someone calls in and says, you know, it's only one-tenth of Calvin Coolidge's...

The same put-down I laid on Pizza above, upon further consideration, really proves true to anyone who uses this executive order stuff to make noise...

Gosh, what a pathetic, loser, despicable, deplorable, horrendous, embarrassment the Tea Party has become.... If I remember correctly, a recent poll showed Republicans had less popularity than maggots, centipedes, and slugs.... Seriously, someone did a poll like that and it was all over Time-Warner's networks... I remember seeing.

So, since you have considerable news media types monitoring this blog, here is a question for all of you: Would you take a maggot's, centipede's, or slug's viewpoint and lead off your newscast? So why are you wasting our time by covering the Republican Party? We don't want to hear it. Tell us something interesting instead. The Republican Party is dead. The Republican Party is less popular than a three-decade-old Cabbage Patch Doll. The Republican Party has less popularity than did the Edsel...

Why don't you instead, talk about Kiev? Those are some brave people.

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 12:46am
I was trying to search for this link which I came across earlier today for the above. Surprisingly, this was the first I'd heard of it, so perhaps others may not know of it, even though it took place in the Senate last week....


This describes the drama behind the Senate confirmation of the House's raising of the debt ceiling... It is quite a story and it certainly exemplifies everything I said about Republicans above.

It proves that the U.S. Congress really isn't to blame for its failure to act. But it is the Republicans IN Congress who are solely responsible for most of the inaction America has endured since the 2010 Tea Party election sweep.

Everything I said above about Republicans still holds true, in fact, even more so if you read this link....

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 1:35am
Holy smokes. Sorry to change the thread but I just found out that a few U.S. metros produce 50% of national GDP...

Sort of explains both why Romney lost, and why Republicans were totally caught off guard that he did....

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:42am
MFD: No, I would guess Roosevelt to be more evil than Reagan, or in fact, any Republican.

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:55am
Time for everybody to watch the following video and pull your heads out of the sand before it's too late:


Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:57am
Kavips: I don't care who you or anybody else equates me with. I'm going to speak the truth and stand for what is right regardless. I'm not on this blog to win a popularity contest.

In fact, the more I'm criticized and made fun of, the more convinced I am that I'm right.

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 8:45am
kavips: You are correct in stating that the Grande Old Party is in shambles and I look forward to 2014 when the Tea Party re-creates the Republican party with landslide victories against both Republican and Democrat "establishment" politicians! Oust the old incompetent "representatives" on both sides of the political aisle and maybe Congress will become relevant again.

And again, just because Bush did it (Executive orders) doesn't mean it should be done...especially by a president who ran his entire campaign against such abuse of power.
If B.H.O. resembled the man he campaigned to be I would actually respect him, but he is going down in history as one of the biggest hypocrites in American political history.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Feb 20, 2014 8:52am
Kavips: Interesting map. It makes sense. Most of the industrial production, manufacturing, scientific studies, inventions, medical advances, institutes of higher learning, etc., etc., come from those Metro areas that yes, Wilmington is a part of. Note those areas are shown as Red on that map, but are the so-called Blue Counties "Liberal" in political terms [thanks to the infamous USa Today map for the election of 2000 - Gore vs. Bush Jr.], whereas the blue areas on that map are the so-called Red Counties, "Conservative" in political terms.

The other interesting factoid is the those Blue Counties Liberal areas payout the most to the Feds and get the lease back, while those Red Counties Conservative areas payout the least to the Feds, yet get far more back. What is interesting about this is those who get the most complain about the evil government the most. It seems to me that we as the tax payers in the Blue counties should demand that the Feds stop giving so much to those Red counties since they don't appreciate it anyhow, so we could then use that money for other problems in our Metro areas. Why throw good money after bad.

Here's some data to show that what I just said is correct.


Thu, Feb 20, 2014 10:41am
I’m with Rick on his opinion that "Silent Cal" was one of our best presidents ever...Ronald Reagan was a big fan of Calvin Coolidge too.

As I pointed out in my earlier post to Mike, it's not the number of EOs carried out by the presidents (past and present;) it is the fact that many of 0bama’s EOs are legislation (legislative powers belong solely to CONGRESS).

Even President Washington did it (issued an unconstitutional Executive order)… but he was challenged, backed off, and let Congress legislate.

Obama would hardly be the first to force his will on our nation. George Washington thought he could do so when, in 1793, he proclaimed neutrality in the war between France and England. In doing so, he usurped authority belonging to Congress. Madison and Jefferson vehemently protested because the president’s order bound every American, not just government workers. They knew that it would be proper for a president, acting much the same as a corporation leader would act, to issue an order binding workers under his command.

When a citizen violated Washington’s neutrality executive order, he was arrested and tried for his action. But a federal court acquitted him on the grounds that a presidential decree aimed at all Americans was an invalid exercise of authority. (Would that we had federal justices who would similarly view presidential wrongdoing!) A chastened Washington then asked Congress to replace his order with its own legislation accomplishing the goal in a constitutional manner, and Congress did as requested. Washington issued no further executive orders aimed at the people.

It can’t be stated too often that lawmaking is the sole prerogative of the Legislative Branch. But when that branch allows the executive-order practice to continue, it even escalates. As long as congressional failure to assert its sole authorized power is allowed to continue, executive orders will continue to saddle the American people with rules and regulations that might never have arisen had the Constitution’s very first sentence (after the Preamble) been obeyed.


Mike from Delaware
Thu, Feb 20, 2014 1:22pm
EarlGrey said: "Even President Washington did it (issued an unconstitutional Executive order)…but he was challenged, backed off and let Congress legislate."

So if Obama is indeed doing what our first President tried to do, then Congress [namely the GOP/TEA members of Congress] should then offically challenge him as the Congress during Washington's term did. I've not seen any of that, just right wing ranting about Obama and his excessive amount of EO's, and that he's evil, he's a Socialist, he was born in Kenya, etc.

So Rand Paul, Rubio, Bohner, McConnell and the rest of the GOP/TEA gang in Congress, where are you if Obama is violating the Constitution? So, let me be clear, what I'm saying to these folks in Congress is, either put up or shut up. To simply whine about Obama and make claims that you're not willing to back up with official action, means you're just shooting blanks and shouldn't be taken seriously, causing you and your party to come across like a bunch of cry babies.

Bottom line is the DEMS have control of the government. The GOP/TEA hate this, but rather than be constructive and in an intelligent way make their case for their people winning in 2014 and again in 2016, they just blather on and on allowing knuckleheads like Rush, Jensen, FOX "news" to be their spokespeople thus causing most folks to tune out their message.

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 1:35pm
Mike: Bottom line is neither side (other than Rand Paul and the other Tea Party-types) has the "guts" to stand up to this president and tell him he's wrong. NO real Tea Party candidate or representative is saying 0bama was born in Kenya or even ranting about excessive EOs.

BTW, Rand Paul is calling out the president but the G.O.P./Republican Progressive-types like Boehner/McConnell/Lindsay Graham are too busy targeting the Tea-Partiers who they fear in 2014.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:24pm
EarlGrey: This is why, I still believe the TEA Party activists should break off and start their own party. Allow the marketplace of ideas in the voting booth decide if their message resonates with most Americans. Maybe if on their own, they'd do a better job, as they wouldn't have to fight others within their own party.

IF Obama is violating the Constitution, he should not be allowed to get away with that, but a fractured, bumbling G.O.P. isn't going to be able to do anything. So again, I believe it's time for the TEA Party to stand on its own feet and become its own party separate from the Republicans.

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:45pm
Actually you are both wrong and I think the map shows why. Or put more diplomatically, you are both right and I think the map shows why.

We talk about political parties. But the real divide is economics. Shall we say a rural based economy versus an urban one.

This is not the first time we've had this divide. Prior to Jackson winning, the urban's controlled the Fed. Then as the West expanded, the rural dominated. Then with the Civil war, the South was reconstructed meaning that the urbans had control again (by putting their people into those southern spots) and controlled the Fed up until the Great Depression. Then we got a balance mix that has lasted, at least till 1994.

The balance mix worked well. That generation listened to each other and compromised. Though Delaware's Honest John came from Millsboro, no one in the Wilmington area protested that he had to go.. Hard to imagine that today.

What happened was not so much the parties, but the media began playing off this divide, and the political parties followed suit.

There is no reason for not compromising; for not recognizing that we are one America, as one body, that all the parts are connected and for all to do well, all must do well. Except for the fact that if you recognize that truth, the media on one or the other side, calls you out, portrays you as a traitor, tells your voters you are weak willed, and more or less uses psychological pressure to make you more inclined to exacerbate the divide, than work to mend it...

Just as a mother in law can destroy a happy marriage, a immoral press can destroy a happy nation....

No one really votes the opposite of what is in their best interests. If we did, we'd have been erased a long, long time ago. Therefore no one is really stupid. They are voting truly how the see fit for themselves... People who hate abortion, vote against it, no harm there. People who think the women has more rights than an unborn, tend to vote for choice, no harm there.... And choice makes more sense in urban areas; anti abortion makes more sense in rural areas...

The obvious answer is to let both sides do what they want. It should be fair for someone to get an abortion; it should be fair for others to try to persuade them not to go through with it.

So, we can get along, but we need to banish the mother-in-law, which in this case is our media, fanning the flames of only one side or the other...

The map explains why that is hard to do, because communication is how disparities are eliminate, and from the map, it reminds me of South Africa, with seperatist independent nations tucked within its own borders... Each communicates within its own group, and not with the parties on the outside...

We have become an insular society.

Mike from Delaware
Thu, Feb 20, 2014 2:58pm
Kavips: Well said.

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 5:39pm
Mike: Why should the Tea Party leave when it's the G.O.P. that has departed so far from Lincoln's Republican Party? The G.O.P. will fade away, just as the Whigs did...

Thu, Feb 20, 2014 7:37pm
MFD: You are correct about what Congress should do about Obama. Problem is, establishment Republicans are spineless. Also, some Senate Republicans are banking on winning the majority in this year's elections and so are "laying low", a strategy I disagree with because they thought they were going to win the last two times. And if they lose this year, they'll lay low until 2016, 2018, 2020, etc.

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Feb 21, 2014 6:41am
EarlGrey & Mrpizza: there are two Republican parties, at odds with the other. A divided party is weak & pretty much useless. Frankly I believe the reason the G.O.P. isn't going after Obama on the EO thing is because they know they DON'T have a case. It's an election year, they've got their butts kicked last fall with the government shutdown & don't want to tick off the voters again this close to the election.

Fri, Feb 21, 2014 8:50am
Mike: We will have to agree to disagree on the reasons why the G.O.P. isn't going after the president.

You might find the link below interesting...Rand Paul discusses the Third Party issue.

Ron Paul ran for president as a third party candidate and made conservative ideals of small government and personal responsibility popular among a younger generation of voters that typically do not find the Republican Party’s message appealing. Sen. Paul, however, is not so sure a third party is best way to affect change in the current political landscape.

...he wants to see the Republican Party move in a newer, more inclusive direction. Sen. Paul watched the ‘establishment G.O.P.’ tell Ronald Reagan to “sit down and shut up” in the primary against President Gerald Ford in 1976, but he also watched the conservative element of the party stand up for their principles. Ultimately, the party came together and rallied around Reagan. There is a very real opportunity for that to happen again, but the Republican Party needs to be willing to duke it out and emerge better and stronger.

“There is a struggle going on within the Republican Party… I am proud that there is a struggle, and I will struggle to make the Republican Party a different party, a bigger party, a more diverse party, and a party that can win national elections again,” Sen. Paul said. “It is the ideas of liberty and presenting them to everyone, not just white folks with ties on.”

Mike from Delaware
Fri, Feb 21, 2014 12:45pm
EarlGrey: Thanks for the video link to Rand Paul's interview with Glenn Beck. He made some great points about the 4th amendment. I hadn't heard about that woman who was trying to prevent dead people from voting in the last election, then being targeted by the government.

That reminds me of the ole joke that goes: Grandpa always voted Republican throughout his life; after he died, he started voting Democrat.

The quotes above from Rand Paul are interesting too. He makes a valid point, going back to Reagan. He's a pretty credible voice, if folks like him can be the voice of the party vs. Sarah Palin, Christine O'Donnell, and some of the other "nut jobs" that seem to like to be out front representing your party, then you might have a shot at doing the Reagan thing again.

I'd be interested in hearing more about Rand Paul and his ideas [as long as he and his fellow folks are not going to mess with Social Security for my generation]. Reform it for the younger set fine, but it's too late in the game for my group. I need to be hearing far more of that from the G.O.P./TEA folks. Everyone has their issue, that's mine. Some folks vote pro-abortion or anti-abortion, others the 2nd amendment, for others a larger government, others for smaller government, etc.

My issue is I've paid faithfully for what will be 47 years of fulltime work, when I retire in four years, and expect the government to honor that and pay-out as our agreement stated. I'm not a taker; your party needs to stop calling us takers and Social Security an Entitlement; this isn't Welfare. I've paid my Social Secuity insurance premium every month and do not want any funny business coming from Washington D.C. about doing its part of the arrangement.

Sadly, the younger G.O.P./TEA folks don't believe SS will be there for them so they have no interest in keeping it going for my group, thus what pulls me towards the DEMS when time to vote rolls around. Surely I am not going to vote for folks who are going to burn down the pier as my boat approaches it. THAT attitude and view of the TEA/G.O.P. will need to change BEFORE I'd seriously vote for any national TEA/G.O.P. candidate [Congressional and Prez].

Sat, Feb 22, 2014 9:33am
MFD: We're more concerned about the other SS, ie the Schutzstaffel being there for us if we don't stop the rampage being conducted against conservatives and Christians by the current Communist/Nazi regime.

Add your comment:
Attention: In an attempt to promote a level of civility and personal responsibility in blog discussions, we now require you to be a member of the WDEL Members Only Group in order to post a comment. Your Members Only Group username and password are required to process your post.

You can join the WDEL Members Only Group for free by clicking here.
If you are already a member but have forgotten your username or password, please click here.

Please register your post with your WDEL Members Only Group username and password below.

Copyright © 2014, Delmarva Broadcasting Company. All Rights Reserved.   Terms of Use.
WDEL Statement of Equal Employment Opportunity and Outreach